Hello guys, this is our time, time to Kizomba Romana at Black Garden - Summer Time 2012.

Hello guys, this is our time, time to Kizomba Romana at Black Garden - Summer Time 2012.

Angola 2012: Numa diz que se houver fraudes MPLA vai "ver fraldas"

• Republic of Angola hosts exclusive fair on Argentine products
• Republic of Angola and Zambia want CFB re-opened soon
• França 2012: José Eduardo dos Santos felicita François Hollande
• Angola 2012: Numa diz que se houver fraudes MPLA vai "ver fraldas"
• Cidade de Luanda sem água potável há cerca de dois dias

http://www.angolaxyami.com

 

Turkménistan: La compétition géoéconomique sur le gaz

On se souvient des tensions inattendues survenues entre Bakou et Achgabat au cours de l’été 2009 lorsque le président turkmène menaçait son homologue azéri de saisir les juridictions internationales afin de régler la question (déjà ancienne) du partage de la Caspienne et des gisements gaziers litigieux que seize rencontres bilatérales n’avaient pas suffi à résoudre. La crise n’aura duré que quelques semaines mais elle aura suffit à préoccuper l’industrie gazière quant à la survie du projet Nabucco. En effet, le projet stratégique doit acheminer le gaz caucasien, et notamment turkmène, en Europe et doit passer par l’Azerbaïdjan.

En réalité, l’enjeu dépasse largement la seule question des relations bilatérales entre les deux Etats. En effet, dans la première phase du projet, seul le gaz azéri est concerné. Mais le gaz turkmène doit intervenir pour sa seconde phase (et passer par l’Azerbaïdjan) afin que le gazoduc fonctionne à pleine capacité. Le projet Nabucco repose donc en partie sur l’harmonie des relations entre les deux pays.
On imagine sans difficulté que le Président Berdymoukhamedov l’aura compris et que la crise de l’été 2009 lui aura servi de deux manières. Le président turkmène y aura vu l’occasion d’avertir l’Azerbaïdjan qu’il fallait résoudre ce conflit s’il voulait pleinement profiter de Nabucco. De plus, le durcissement de sa position lui aura permis de se rendre indispensable à la réalisation du projet (et de faire monter les prix de son gaz). Un règlement du litige opposant Bakou et Achgabat permettrait un déroulement harmonieux de l’initiative Nabucco et représenterait un avantage certain pour les deux Etats. Les présidences turkmène et azéri y auront également sans doute vu l’opportunité de mettre fin à un conflit ancien portant sur le tracé de leurs frontières maritimes et le partage de leurs ressources.
A l’heure actuelle, les relations entre les deux Etats se sont adoucies. Les présidents Berdymoukhamedov et Aliyev donnent l’impression de coopérer afin que des projets stratégiques ne soient pas bloqués par les litiges historiques qui les opposent. L’heure n’est donc plus aux menaces mais à la détente.

Mais les enjeux ne s’arrêtent pas là. Le projet de construction du pipeline et le tracé de son parcours sont contestés par un autre protagoniste de la zone. Nabucco doit acheminer le gaz des deux anciennes républiques soviétiques vers l’Europe en contournant la Russie et l’Ukraine. Le mois de septembre 2011 a marqué le début des négociations entre l’UE et les deux Etats caucasiens. Moscou s’est aussitôt exprimé et la diplomatie russe a condamné l’action de l’UE en la qualifiant d’ingérence susceptible de compliquer la situation dans cette région. La Russie conteste bien évidemment le tracé du gazoduc qui doit permettre aux Etats membres de l’UE de ne plus dépendre de ses seules réserves (suite aux crises gazières récurrentes entre Moscou et Kiev).

Les cinq pays riverains ne sont jamais parvenus à un accord sur le partage des eaux de la Caspienne. Moscou a tenu à rappeler que l’Azerbaïdjan et le Turkménistan ont signé en 2007 une déclaration politique aux termes de laquelle les riverains s’engageaient à ne pas développer des activités hors de leurs eaux territoriales sans l’accord de leurs voisins. Aussi les russes avancent-ils l’argument selon lequel l’ingérence européenne n’aurait d’autres conséquences que la complexification des relations diplomatiques locales. Si, sur cet aspect, il est très probable que Moscou ait raison (sa réaction énergique le prouve), l’on ne peut s’empêcher d’associer ces déclarations à la crainte russe de perdre le monopole gazier dont elle dispose en Europe.

Pourtant, l’Etat russe n’est pas en reste sur le marché puisqu’il concurrence directement Nabucco avec le projet South Stream, qui doit acheminer le gaz exploité par la compagnie Gazprom et relier la mer Caspienne à l’Italie via un réseau terrestre et off-shore de plusieurs milliers de kilomètres. Et comme le rappelait en 2008 le directeur du projet Nabucco Reinhard Mitschek, la croissance de la demande annuelle européenne est telle qu’elle crée des besoins suffisants pour plusieurs gazoducs dont South Stream et Nabucco. Et pourtant la Russie continue de faire preuve de beaucoup de zèle pour mettre à mal ce projet qui pourrait « affranchir » les anciennes républiques soviétiques (mais aussi l’Europe) de son joug énergétique et politique.
En tout état de cause, si l’avenir du projet reste chancelant, le partenaire turkmène apparaissant comme peu fiable, son cadre juridique a toutefois été finalisé en juin 2011 avec la signature d’un accord entre l’Autriche, la Bulgarie, la Hongrie, la Roumanie et la Turquie pour rendre le projet conforme aux législations de ces pays par lesquels transiterait le gazoduc. Les négociations concrètes ne font que commencer mais l’on peut être assuré que Russes, Azéris et tTurkmènes feront preuve de fermeté dans la défense de leurs intérêts respectifs.

Doriane de Lestrange

White power - United States, Britain, France and NATO - Hands off Libya! And out of Africa!

The African Socialist International (ASI) condemns the present and historical barbaric assault on Libya, Africa from imperialist powers who are driven by the profit motive inherent in capitalism, pure and simple.

We condemn the United Nations (UN) as a tool of imperialism being used to ensure and protect neocolonialism in Africa.

 

U.S. bombs destroy home of Colonel Gaddafi, resulting in the deaths of his son and grandchildren

 

It was the United Nations that provided the legal and political cover for the attack on Libya.

It is NATO, under U.S. leadership that is formally carrying out the mission.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed during the era of colonial supremacy for the purpose of contending with the then-Soviet Union.

The fact that this North Atlantic treaty group has come together to attack Africa helps to expose the fact the the crisis of imperialism is generated in large part by the growing threat to colonial assets traditionally in the hands of white power.

The attack on Libya gives lie to the notion of sovereignty in Africa. Neocolonialism is the fundamental reality that defines the African state, even states attempting to exercise a modicum of independence like Libya.

Remember, neocolonialism is more than the attitude of the head of state or ministers of government.

It is an economic relationship that Kwame Nkrumah recognized as a necessary product of a divided Africa.

The attack on Libya reveals for all to see the vulnerability of any so-called independent African state to stand up alone to the military projections of the imperialist State, independent of the mobilized international African working class.

Libya is standing alone notwithstanding its financial contributions to various of the neocolonial heads of state whose favour Gaddafi courted in his efforts to unite the neocolonial club called the Africa Union (AU).

Not a single one of them has come to his aid although many of them are always available to carry out military missions in Africa to facilitate this or that imperialist foreign policy objective.

The ASI understands that the United Nations was created by white power imperialism and that it is incapable of serving the best interest of Africa and its people, no matter where on this earth we are located.

Our redemption and the peace we long for is only possible in a united and socialist Africa.

We reject UN Security Council seat/s for Nigeria or South Africa, or for the both of them.

These are neocolonial states which would only act in accordance with imperialist wishes and do the bidding of white power.

ASI Chairman, Omali Yeshitela, while addressing the Chinese and their collaboration with imperialism in his Political Report to the Fifth Congress of the African People’s Socialist Party, made this observation: “China also intends to transform its material conditions of existence, not through revolution to overthrow capitalism, but through joining imperialism at the trough.”

Indeed the black petty bourgeoisie leadership of Good Luck Jonathan in Nigeria, or Zuma and the African National Congress in South Africa, are begging to get to the blood-soaked imperialist trough, especially down in South Africa where ruthless anti-black war criminals are still being harboured, and who still have privilege.

The imperialists also hide behind the Arab league, a corrupted organisation of Arab neocolonial dictators who collaborate with the white settler colonial state of Israel.

This imperialist-led boot-licking organization has no legitimacy to decide when an African country should be attacked and its government replaced.

Libya’s stand against Israel must not go unnoticed. It is an important anti-imperialist, anti-zionist stance, as is the similar stand taken by Iran and Syria. The combined influence of Libya, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. in the face of a weakened Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Algeria certainly is something that has loosened the metaphorical bowels of imperialism.

It is clear that the question of African unity is the most pressing question of our times.

It is a question that not only will determine the fate of Africa and African people worldwide, but it is a question that will determine whether a meaningful future is forthcoming, free of bosses and slaves, that when solved will chart the course for all of humanity.

If we want to stop all imperialists' bestial wars of aggressions, we must participate and accelerate the struggle for a socialist United States of Africa.

The African petty bourgeoisie and its African Union are of no use for Africa and African people.

Together with its counterpart, the Arab petty bourgeoisie and the Arab League cannot fight imperialism.

They are part and parcel of imperialism they have no interest in doing so. They are allies in an unequal partnership.

This aggression launched by US president Barack Hussein Obama under the pretext of saving civilians from Gadaffi’s army is packaged in a bundle of lies in the same way that US president George W Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair used to invade Iraq, then capture and lynch President Saddam Hussein.

They claimed Hussein was acquiring and developing weapons of mass destruction, which later were proved to be pure inventions of the US State Department and CIA.

Everyone already knows, however, that it is the US and its NATO allies that have all the weapons of mass destruction that constitute a threat to the world's existence.

One must pose the question: Why did the indebted and bankrupt British, French and US North American states attack Libya?

The answer: It is to prevent the shifting of power at the expense of Europe and North America.

The downfall of the AU, once championed by Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, will remain a powerless and treacherous organisation, because it is a Pan-Africanist vision that appeals to the heads of neocolonial states who are opposed to the emancipation and power of Africa and of the African workers.

The consolidation of the real shifting of the balance of power in favour of Africa and of the African world begins with the triumph of the African Internationalism of Omali Yeshitela, which is the development of the African Fundamentalism of Garvey, the Socialism of Nkrumah and the revolutionary work of Malcolm X, Patrice Lumumba and others; Yeshitelism recognises the necessity to organise into a single organisation of African workers and peasants from around the world to build the United States of Africa, which will end the power of white capitalists and their negro collaborators.

We cannot accept the French, British, US North Americans and others who continue to bamboozle us with lies about democracy and white people saving Africa.

Bourgeois elections anywhere are for the people with money. They are never the voice of the people, but the voice of people with money.

Most of us already know that Africans have no freedom in the west. A conference sponsored by the same UN in September 2001 in Durban, South Africa agreed that slavery and colonialism are crimes against Humanity. How can UN allow them to bomb Libya?

All charity money collected on behalf of Africans in Haiti is still in the hands of white NGO accounts for their own use.

In Libya, the rebels are already selling oil and setting up a central bank. A rebel movement setting up its own bank is a première in world history!

There are reports showing that Obama backed CIA covert actions against Libya before the bombing started.

British SAS were captured in Libya inn March and Western corporations made plans to sell Libyan oil just as they did for Iraq before the invasion occurred.

US president Obama has frozen $30 billion of Libyan funds earmarked for African Projects! And they are steadily bombing the people of Libya to save them.

And finally, our unity with Gadaffi’s government is not based on the inherent legitimacy of the government itself.

It is based on the fact that the imperialists are attempting to rescue themselves from a deep crisis where their political power is being threatened on every front with Libya.

In fact, the same thing is true with Syria.

We don’t validate the regimes.

We invalidate imperialism, although in the case of Libya, as we have said on more than one occasion, Gadaffi stands heads above most of the African cretins that pose as leaders and heads of state.

It is too late; Africans will never accept this invasion of our land. Reparations are still due us from the white world for hundreds of years of stolen black labour and African resources.

Death to Imperialism! Death to Neocolonialism!

Build the African Socialist international, the tool for a genuine unity of Africa and African people world wide.

Statement from African Socialist International, uhuruasi@aol.com, April 26, 2011, London, 07862294364, www.asiuhuru.org

African Socialist International

Sirte civilians accuse NATO of genocide: "They have hit all kinds of buildings: schools, hospitals"

CIVILIANS pouring out of the besieged city of Sirte accused NATO of committing genocide yesterday as revolutionary forces reinforced their numbers and prepared for a new attack on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's home town.

Long lines of civilian vehicles were seen leaving after a night punctuated by NATO air attacks. Forces fighting for the National Transitional Council (NTC) added their own artillery and mortar rounds at regular intervals.

Civilians, many looking scared or sullen, said that conditions inside Sirte were "disastrous". They made claims which, if verified, offer a conundrum for Nato, which operates with a UN mandate on the need to protect civilian life.

"It has been worse than awful," said Riab Safran, 28, as his car was searched by revolutionary fighters. His family had been sleeping on the beach, he said.

"They have hit all kinds of buildings: schools, hospitals," he said, referring to NATO airstrikes.

He said he could not distinguish between NATO and NTC attacks but believed it was a NATO bomb that destroyed part of his home on Saturday. NATO said it hit a number of military targets including a rocket launcher, artillery, and three ammunition stores.

Another resident said: "NATO bombing is killing civilians. Where is the United Nations? Where is the Muslim world to stop this genocide of the people of Sirte?"

The man, who gave his name as Mohammed Ali Alum Sekily, said six members of his family had been killed, but declined to give details. An eight-day-old baby brought out in one car was born on the beach, the family said.

Some of those interviewed by The Times said that Gaddafi loyalists were forcing residents to stay in the city. Others said that residents were frightened of revolutionary fighters who were rumoured to be abducting women from cars trying to leave Sirte.

NTC fighters denied the charges. I saw them offering food and water to those queueing to leave.

Residents said that power and water had run out and petrol was 400 Libyan dinars ($A330) a gallon. The water shortage has produced an epidemic of diseases, according to medical staff at a clinic in the town of Harawa, 35km east of Sirte. However, Gaddafi loyalists appeared to have plentiful stores of pasta, oil, flour and ammunition, residents said. Loyalists used an open radio channel to taunt NTC fighters, insisting that the city would never be taken.

The NTC forces checked the identity papers of those leaving against lists of known Gaddafi security personnel and senior former government figures, and they detained a number of men.

Following their unsuccessful assault on Saturday, one commander said that the NTC leadership thought that the attack was badly co-ordinated.

"We don't want to lose people, we don't want another Saturday, this was a mistake," said Omran Al Awaib from the Tiger Brigade.

The attacking forces lost eight dead and 153 wounded as they tried to move up the main road into the city. But the hard-won gains were abandoned the same evening as NTC troops retreated, leaving a barricade of sand-filled shipping containers. It has now been dismantled by Gaddafi forces.

There was almost no fighting yesterday except for long-range artillery and mortars. NTC forces were finally able to link up with reinforcements pushing towards the city from Benghazi, completing their encirclement of Sirte.

An NTC commander said that a new offensive would begin in the coming days.

THE TIMES

Tom Coghlan

From:The Times

September 27, 2011 1:27PM

Una filtración de Wikileaks, causa de la dimisión del director de Al Jazeera

La influyente cadena de televisión por satélite Al Yasira ha confirmado ladimisión de su director de noticias, Wadah Khanfar, y su sustitución por un gris empresario perteneciente a la familia real de Qatar. La salida de Khanfar se produce poco después de que trascendiera un cable filtrado por «Wikileaks», en el que se da a entender que Khanfar se plegó a presiones del gobierno norteamericano en la cobertura de la guerra de Irak en octubre de 2005.

AFP

La interpretación de «the New York Times» contrasta con la del rotativo británico «The Guardian», para el que la salida del periodista palestino Khanfar —uno de los creadores del enorme poder mediático de «Al Yasira» como jefe de informativos desde hace ocho años— se debe a la presión de los propietarios, la familia real del pequeño estado petrolífero de Qatar. Para el entorno del emir, Khanfar habría obtenido últimamente demasiado poder y autonomía, por lo que «se hizo necesaria su sustitución».

Contradicciones

Sea cual sea la versión más correcta, el cambio pone en entredicho lareputación de Al Yasira como el único canal por satélite independiente del mundo árabe, en un contexto de televisiones públicas completamente controladas por el régimen político de turno.

Los observadores del «fenómeno Al Yasira» venían, no obstante, apuntando desde hace tiempo las contradicciones de este canal, que se ha forjado fama de «neutralidad» en la cobertura de Oriente Próximo y de «agresividad» frente a la política de Estados Unidos en la región.

Se subrayaba en particular el enorme despliegue de medios para cubrir la ofensiva rebelde en Libia contra el régimen de Gadafi, en contraste con la parquedad y sombras en la información de la revuelta en Bahréin. El régimen de Qatar se movilizó públicamente contra la dictadura libia, pero guardó silencio cuando la revuelta chií estuvo a punto de derribar a la minoría suní que gobierna en la isla vecina.

FRANCISCO DE ANDRÉS / MADRID
Día 21/09/2011 - 21.00h

STOP US WARS AROUND THE WORLD - What can we do?

The words that former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recently used concerning the war that he promoted in Vietnam can be applied to all of our interventionist military adventures:

"We were wrong, terribly wrong."

McNamara didn't appreciate the advice offered by another Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient, General David Shoup, and had him removed as Commandant.

General Shoup said: I believe that if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (third World) nations, so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type, because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not American style, which they don't want and, above all, don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

And more recently Rummy didn't listen to Marine Corps General "They've screwed up"

Anthony Zinni

who said that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder.

Years ago, General Butler said: "Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected President in 1916 on a platform he had "kept us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany. . . What caused our government to change its mind so suddenly? MONEY."

What can we do to stop the madness? First, fight recruiting and the coming draft. Studies for the Army show parents are the top obstacles to recruiting. "Opposition to . . . military service is increasing significantly among both moms and dads," says a study of 1,200 potential recruits by the firm Millward Brown. Another look at potential recruits, by GfK Custom Research, found that the biggest influences in candidates' decisions to join were mothers, named by 81% of respondents, followed by fathers, at 70%. "Reach the parents with the Army's new message, particularly moms," the study urges. But General Butler had another message.

Smedley Butler said: "The government declares war. To say helplessly: As individuals we have nothing to do with it, we can't prevent it. But WHO ARE WE? Well, WE right now are the mothers and fathers of every able-bodied boy of military age in the United States. "WE" are also you young men of voting age and over, that they'll use for cannon fodder. And "WE" can prevent it. Now--you MOTHERS particularly. The only way you can resist all this war hysteria and beating tomtoms is by hanging on to the love you bear your boys. When you listen to some well-worded, well-delivered war speech, just remember that it's nothing but Sound. It's your boy that matters. And no amount of sound can make up to you for the loss of your boy."

Various anti-recruit, anti-draft and anti-serve organizations are listed at the "links."

It's important to end the current involvement, and even more important to prevent future ones. The war racket has been able to flourish and expand, for the benefit of corporations and not for the people, because our governmental leaders and representatives are not sufficiently constrained by the Constitution in its present form.

Smedley Butler said: "If we really want to make it impossible to have our young men sent abroad to fight the wars of others, then let us by all means insist upon adding the Peace Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

The ongoing war in Iraq is a poster child for war is a racket for all of the reasons previously covered. Let's make sure that we end it and don't go there again. Our principal overseas bases in Germany and Korea are anachronisms which should have been shuttered long ago. Germany's standard of living is higher than ours and South Korea doesn't need us to defend their Hyundai and Kia auto export plants. And we need to recall the secret, provocative military units now operating under Presidential order in various countries around the world.

We must change our national military

policy

from one which makes us the last imperial empire in the world to one which restores us to the family of nations who enjoy peace and prosperity. We'd be in accordance with the US National Defense Strategy, which states: "The United States and its allies and partners have a strong interest in protecting the sovereignty of nation states. In the secure international order that we seek, states must be able to effectively govern themselves and order their affairs as their citizens see fit. Nevertheless, they must exercise their sovereignty responsibly, in conformity with the customary principles of international law, as well as with any additional obligations that they have freely accepted. It is unacceptable for regimes to use the principle of sovereignty as a shield behind which they claim to be free to engage in activities that pose enormous threats to their citizens, neighbors, or the rest of the international community."

The

US Constitution

has no provision for foreign military adventures. It provides only "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

We'd also be in accordance with the United Nations Charter, which disallows aggression.

Chapter I, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

We need to put the priority back on the people rather than on war-racket profits. It would make us more secure by strengthening our domestic base, heartening our people and making us less disliked abroad.

Smedley Butler said: "The United States is in no danger whatever of military invasion. Even the Navy and War Departments, which are always preparing for war, and the State Department, which is always talking about peace but thinking about war, agree on that. By reason of our geographical position, it is all but impossible for any foreign power to muster, transport and land sufficient troops on our shores for a successful invasion."

We can do it and we will!

Source